OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of gagging in people undergoing dental treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 March 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 March 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 18 March 2019), AMED Ovid (1985 to 18 March 2019), and the proceedings of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) online (2001 to 18 March 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also conducted forwards citation searching on the included studies via Google Scholar. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving people who were given a pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention to manage gagging that interfered with dental treatment. We excluded quasi-RCTs. We excluded trials with participants who had central or peripheral nervous system disorders, who had oral lesions or were on systemic medications that might affect the gag sensation, or had undergone surgery which might alter anatomy permanently.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials at unclear risk of bias with 328 participants (263 adults and 65 children who were four years or older), in which one trial compared acupuncture and acupressure (with thumb, device and sea band) at P6 (point located three-finger breadths below the wrist on the inner forearm in between the two tendons) to sham acupuncture and acupressure with and without sedation. One trial compared acupuncture at P6 point to sham acupuncture. These trials reported both completion of dental procedure and reduction in gagging (assessor and patient reported) as their outcomes. One cross-over and one split-mouth trial studied the effect of laser at P6 point compared to control. One trial reported reduction in gagging and another reported presence or absence of gagging during dental procedure. Acupuncture at P6 showed uncertain evidence regarding the successful completion of dental procedure (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.01; two trials, 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain evidence regarding the reduction in gagging (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.89; one trial, 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence) in comparison to sham acupuncture. Acupuncture at P6 with sedation did not show any difference when compared to sham acupuncture with sedation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure using thumb pressure with or without sedation showed no clear difference in completing dental procedure (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; one trial, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.46; one trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively), or reduction in gagging (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.23; one trial, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; one trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively) when compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation. Acupressure at P6 with device showed uncertain evidence regarding the successful completion of dental procedure (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.18; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain evidence regarding the reduction in gagging (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.53; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to sham acupressure. However, device combined with sedation showed no difference for either outcome (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; one trial, 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.69; one trial, 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively). Acupressure using a sea band with or without sedation showed no clear difference in completing dental procedure (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; one trial, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.16; one trial, 19 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively), or reduction in gagging (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; one trial, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.72 to 10.14; one trial, 19 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively) when compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation. Laser at P6 showed a difference in absence of gagging (odds ratio (OR) 86.33, 95% CI 29.41 to 253.45; one trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and reduction in gagging (MD 1.80, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.07; one trial, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence) during dental procedure when compared to dummy laser application. No noteworthy adverse effects were reported. For acupuncture at P6, the trial authors were unsure whether the reported adverse effects were due to participant anxiety or due to the intervention. None of the trials on acupressure or laser reported on this outcome. We did not find trials evaluating any other interventions used to manage gagging in people undergoing dental treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence from four trials that was insufficient to conclude if there is any benefit of acupuncture, acupressure or laser at P6 point in reducing gagging and allowing successful completion of dental procedures. We did not find any evidence on any other interventions for managing the gag reflex during dental treatment. More well-designed and well-reported trials evaluating different interventions are needed.
CASE REPORT: The authors report a case of 43-year-old male patient who presented with the classic symptoms of Plummer Vinson syndrome.
CONCLUSION: Dentists have to be familiar with symptoms of PVS and a thorough clinical examination of the patient is necessary for early diagnosis and treatment. As PVS is a precancerous condition with high malignant potential, early diagnosis is of utmost importance for better prognosis.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Mutual interaction of systemic and oral health has largely been underestimated by many patients in the developing countries and hence this report includes a note on importance of adequate medical history taking and its relevance to the dental health and treatment.
Methodology: Ethical committee of the University approved this study. A validated, pre-tested questionnaire was sent electronically to 224 OHP. Questionnaire collected information regarding demography, knowledge about HPV-OSCC link, HPV vaccine, and willingness to educate patients about HPV OSCC link among the participants of this cross-sectional study. Data collected was analysed using "Stata/IC-13" and was summarised using descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
Results: Out of 179 participants, around 39% of the participant's opined virus was not a causative factor for OSCC. Around, 44% replied posterior portion of the tongue/oro-pharynx was the commonest site for HPV related OSCC, whereas 29% replied that lateral border of the tongue was the common site for HPV related OSCC. Forty one percent educated patients regarding HPV infection being a causative factor for OSCC. HPV vaccine can prevent OSCC was stated by 70% OHP. Only 12% were aware of the availability of HPV vaccine in Malaysia. Majority (99%), agreed that there is a need to offer continuing education programmes to dentists highlighting advances and preventive strategies in the fight against OSCC.
Conclusion: Substantial increase in awareness is required among OHP regarding HPV-OSCC link.
OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study investigated the perceptions of CBR managers regarding the level of training in oral health care received by CBR workers, the current oral health care program for PWDs, and the barriers and enablers in providing oral health education, care, and services for PWDs in CBR centres.
METHODS: A semi-structured interview questionnaire and face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with CBR managers (n = 9) from 9 districts in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia, to seek their views on the focus topics. Audiorecorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analysed in MAXQDA software. Qualitative data were analysed via thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Interview content analysis revealed 4 themes, 11 subthemes, and 13 codes. The 4 identified themes were oral health care education and training for CBR workers, oral health care programs and protocol for CBR trainees (PWDs), barriers and enablers to care.
CONCLUSION: In all CBR centres, CBR workers and PWDs receive an oral health presentation, training in oral health care, and are provided with treatment by a dentist assigned by the Ministry of Health. No specific programs, training or special courses were provided by the Department of Social Welfare. Several personal, professional, and social factors were identified as affecting the provision of oral health care to the PWDs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-nine previously treated patients with AgP were re-examined. Clinical and radiographic parameters before treatment discontinuation and at re-examination were compared. OHRQoL at re-call was assessed with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14S).
RESULTS: None of the subjects adhered to suggested periodontal therapy and maintenance after discharge. Mean percentage of sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥6 mm at re-examination was 4.5 ± 5.9%. A total of 182 teeth had been lost over time. Tooth loss rate was 0.14/patient/year. From 68 subjects with documented favorable treatment outcomes, higher percentage of sites with PPD ≥6 mm at re-examination and higher radiographic proximal bone loss was associated with current smoking status. Patients with AgP with <20 teeth at re-call had worse OHRQoL than those with ≥20 teeth. Patients with higher full-mouth mean PPD also reported poorer OHRQoL.
CONCLUSION: Treatment in patients with AgP who smoke and neglect proper supportive care, risk periodontal disease progression. Substantial tooth loss and higher full-mouth mean PPD led to poorer OHRQoL in this cohort.
Methods: One hundred and eighty-eight healthy subjects aged between 18 and 50 years with varying oral hygiene status who gave consent to participate were included in this cross-sectional study. The subjects were recruited from primary oral health care of MAHSA University. Oral hygiene of all the participants was measured using Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Stimulated saliva collected using paraffin wax was analyzed for salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium. The relationship between salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium levels with OHI-S was assessed using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient; the strength of relationship was assessed by multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found a weak positive correlation (r = 0.179, p = 0.014) between salivary statherin and OHI-S; weak negative correlation (r = -0.187, p = 0.010) between salivary aPRP and OHI-S; and moderate negative correlation between salivary statherin and salivary aPRP levels (r = -0.50, p
OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).
MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
METHODS: One hundred and fifty periodontitis cases and 150 healthy controls, all Yemeni adults 30-60 years old, were recruited. Sociodemographic data and history of oral hygiene practices and oral habits were obtained. Plaque index (PI) was measured on index teeth. Periodontal health status was assessed using Community Periodontal Index (CPI) and Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) according to WHO. Periodontitis was defined as having one or more sextants with a CPI score ≥ 3. Multiple logistic regression modelling was employed to identify distal, intermediate and proximal determinants of periodontitis, while ordinal regression was used to identify those of CAL scores.
RESULTS: In logistic regression, PI score was associated with the highest odds of periodontitis (OR = 82.9) followed by cigarette smoking (OR = 12.8), water pipe smoking (OR = 10.2), male gender (OR = 3.4) and age (OR = 1.19); on the other hand, regular visits to the dentist (OR = 0.05), higher level of education (OR = 0.37) and daily dental flossing (OR = 0.95) were associated with lower odds. Somewhat similar associations were seen for CAL scores (ordinal regression); however, qat chewing was identified as an additional determinant (OR = 4.69).
CONCLUSION: Water pipe smoking is identified as a risk factor of periodontitis in this cohort in addition to globally known risk factors. Adjusted effect of qat chewing is limited to CAL scores, suggestive of association with recession.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between khat and occlusal caries progression.
Methods: A cohort study was carried out among 98 Yemeni khat chewers and 101 non-chewers aged 18-35 years old with early occlusal caries lesions. All participants answered questions on socio-demographic, khat , oral hygiene , sugar intake, and oral health knowledge at baseline. All posterior teeth with an early enamel lesion on occlusal surfaces detected by visual inspection at baseline were also subjected to DIAGNOdent assessment to confirm early lesion (DIAGNOdent reading 13-24). Participants were re-examined after 12 weeks. Caries progression was considered to occur when the DIAGNOdent reading was >25. Data were analyzed using Relative risk, Mann-Whitney U test, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and logistic regression analysis.
Results: Occlusal caries progression incidence between khat chewers and non-chewers, with the relative risk was 1.68. There was no significant difference in occlusal caries progression on chewing side and non-chewing side among khat chewers. Khat chewing was a statistical predictor for those with low income.
Conclusion: Khat is a risk factor for occlusion caries progression among low income group.